Against Singerism

Peter Singer is rightfully applauded as a philosophical giant. He's also spectacularly wrong.

Written by Bo Winegard.

It is sometimes said that a philosopher’s errors are more illuminating than his truths. If so, Peter Singer deserves his reputation as an intellectual giant—for he is wrong. Spectacularly and extravagantly wrong. But he is wrong with admirable courage and clarity. His influence on modern discourse is deep and deserved. And although he is, as I have said, wrong, he is wrong in the right way. One could certainly say worse things about a philosopher.

Singerism is the philosophy inspired by Peter Singer. Like all isms, it is less sophisticated, less nimble, less subtle than its eponymous inspiration. One can detect its influence inside and outside of academia, from practical applications (e.g., the effective altruism movement) to pop culture (e.g., the television show The Good Place).

I believe that Singerism is not just wrong but pernicious, encouraging an outré morality in which the radicalism of a claim, the extent to which it challenges commons sense, is often treated as a virtue rather than a vice. But I’ll leave that critique aside, for this essay does not aim to catalogue the absurd excesses of Singer’s disciples. It aims instead to demonstrate that Peter Singer is mistaken about the nature of morality and that Singerism, being a simplified and exaggerated extension of his thought, is even more so.